|
Political Intelligence

Site Search Navigation

Search NYTimes.com

Loading...

See next articles

See previous articles

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Political Intelligence

September 27, 2006 11:29 amSeptember 27, 2006 11:29 am

With President Bush apparently set to make another national address by the end of this week – the subject, we’re told, is terrorism again – the White House campaign for public opinion on the war in Iraq and the terrorists Mr. Bush called “mean people” on Tuesday, remains at full throttle.

The release Tuesday afternoon of the “key judgments” of the National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by 16 different agencies, has ramifications for Democrats and Republicans and provides ample talking points as the midterm elections approach. Democrats have touted its findings that the war is indeed fueling terrorism elsewhere; Republicans have emphasized how winning the war in Iraq will curb terrorism.

David Sanger’s analysis of the import for President Bush shows a distinct difference in tone in Mr. Bush’s public statements and the intelligence assessment. Even the “fact sheet” officially declassified by the president late Tuesday dampens the president’s more optimistic assessments. Mr. Sanger’s take:

Portions of the report appear to bolster President Bush’s argument that the only way to defeat the terrorists is to keep unrelenting military pressure on them. But nowhere in the assessment is any evidence to support Mr. Bush’s confident-sounding assertion this month in Atlanta that “America is winning the war on terror.’’

While the spread of self-described jihadists is hard to measure, the report says, the terrorists “are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.”

It says that a continuation of that trend would lead “to increasing attacks worldwide’’ and that “the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities.’’

The report is heightening security’s importance in the November election. Democratic campaign heavyweights, Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Rahm Emanuel, have already scheduled a news conference Wednesday afternoon to challenge Republicans to stake out their views on the analysis in the N.I.E. and (the Dems would argue or) the interpretation of the N.I.E. by President Bush.

Now, several reports and readers have mentioned Congresswoman Jane Harman’s contention that a separate intelligence estimate, confined to the war in Iraq, is being withheld until after the elections. The Democratic ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee asserts that it is classified only as a draft, so as to deflect calls for its release. The Los Angeles Times quotes Fran Townsend, the president’s assistant for homeland security, as saying that the report is still in the works and was not to be completed before January.

Meanwhile, the House is taking up the detainee bill on Wednesday afternoon.

I think it is ridiculous for any political party to claim it has a monopoly on fighting terrorism. Mr. Bush and the Republicans happened to be in office on September 11th, 2001. If Howdy Doody had been president on 9/11, I am sure he would have fought terrorism too, just maybe not in Iraq. Anything less would have been a dereliction of duty. Maybe that is an argument that could be posed about the period from Mr. Bush’s inauguration up to 9/11/01. But please, spare us this nonsense about only Mr. Bush and the Republicans can fight terror.

George Bush loves to treat the American people like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark and feeding us B.S.. We have a secret government that believes we aren’t smart enough to know why they do the those dirty deeds. Bush critisizes his critics for leaking classified info, but declassifies portions for his own politicical gain, in order to feed us more B.S.. It boils down to this; If you want to spend the rest of your life in a state of perpetual war and fear, vote Republican in November. But remember, the Democrats aren’t going to make it any better. Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.

I am a junior in college and my father has been apart of the US Special Forces, Army for 25 years; until our soldiers return home and we begin to take care of issues in our own country, the term “winning” shouldn’t be in his vocabulary.

As we approach the midterm election, it is safe to conclude that little focus will be given to these realities and their eventual resolution…other than the GOP arguing that we cannot cut and run and the Democrats contending that the existing course of action is an unmitigated failure. I understand the partisan nature of politics but I can’t help but look for reasonable alternatives that might succeed.

I contend that the Iraqi conflict, as well as the prevailing Middle East tensions, will be lessened in equal proportion to the success we achieve in providing for a Palestinian state. Given that the NIE assessment posits that, “If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives”, then it would be reasonable to conclude that any progress with the Palestinian issue will greatly enhance the speculative potentiality of the NIE report. Absent the Palestinian effort, I’m of the opinion that the NIE timeframe is overly optimistic and dependent upon a relatively static progression without the prevalence of unforeseen events and escalations…which seems unlikely at best.

Frankly, I doubt that the existing Republican approach or the alternative of withdrawal supported by a number Democrats will serve to alleviate the existing conditions and bring relative stability to the troubled region. Neither approach has the wherewithal to alter the prevailing sentiment. Conversely, a voluntary effort that would demonstrate our ability to discern the profound importance of a successful Palestinian state would, in my opinion, yield exponential goodwill. Given the current conditions, such an effort has little risk.

Depending on who is talking, this National Intelligence Estimate can be used to support three positions: That the war in Iraq is increasing the terrorist threat, is having no effect, or, if won, will reduce the threat. Reminds me of when Woody Hayes was asked why Ohio State did not ghrow many passes. He pointed out that three things can happen and two of them are bad.

What are the Republicans talking about when they say they are winning the war on terror? Iraqis and US soldiers are dying, radical Islamic groups are growing, and Osama has fallen off the face of the earth. This administration has no idea how to respond to terror. It couldn’t even handle a natural disaster.

It is a complete mystery to me why the American people didn’t fire the folks who were manning the bridge when the country was attached by Bin Laden’s gang on 9/11. And by the way, the guy on the bridge was George W. Bush. How anybody with that resume can claim that he and his cohorts are the ones who can keep us safe is beyond belief.

What happened to the Admiral who was in charge of Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941? He got fired. It comes with the territory. As well it should.

Christopher Buckley, a republican conservative ex-Bush 41 speechwriter, recently wrote an incredibly poignant article in Washington Monthly (June). This quote says it all:
“George Tenet’s WMD “slam-dunk,” Vice President Cheney’s “we will be greeted as liberators,” Don Rumsfeld’s avidity to promulgate a minimalist military doctrine, together with the tidy theories of a group who call themselves “neo-conservative” (not one of whom, to my knowledge, has ever worn a military uniform), have thus far: de-stabilized the Middle East; alienated the world community from the United States; empowered North Korea, Iran, and Syria; unleashed sectarian carnage in Iraq among tribes who have been cutting each others’ throats for over a thousand years; cost the lives of 2,600 Americans, and the limbs, eyes, organs, spinal cords of another 15,000—with no end in sight. But not to worry: Democracy is on the march in the Middle East. Just ask Hamas. And the neocons—bright people, all—are now clamoring, ‘On to Tehran!'”

“But remember, the Democrats aren’t going to make it any better.” Au contre, rjhangover (#2).

During the last Presidential elections, when John Kerry tried to make the case for a more realistic and more effective approach to reducing Islamic radical fundamentalist terrorists AND strengthen the USA national security, he was smeared as “weak” and a “cut and run liberal.” Well, the reality is we should LEARN by NOW that he was correct in the proper approach to our national security from those who wish to do us harm. The neo-CONs, Bush Administration are doing everything to make us LESS secure, and increase the crazies out there. Thereby, KEEPING the cowards in our country in perpetual FEAR for the purpose of tenuously holding on to drunk, delusional power.

“Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.” Who do you proposed voting for? Hugo Chavez?

The Democrats have a better approach to our national security, period. It is a myth the Republicans are strong on defense (just look at the mess we have now).

This morning I listened to the news while I got ready for work, and what I heard astounded me. A man, an entertainer, is running for some political office – I didn’t really pay attention to which office – but what got me was the tone of his ad. It was not inspiring. It was not the work of an artist. It was a shoddy attempt at rousing the people in some sense or other. In short, more rhetoric. Just what we need.
I believe our chance at moving toward fixing the situation is to start listening to what is being said – both in America and beyond our golden shores (not just to the words but to the subtext as well), quit spouting opinions before we think about what we are saying, and just look around. Pay attention. It’s time.

Christopher Buckley (and Dan Z) are wrong; Secretary Rumsfeld served in active duty in the U.S. Navy from 1954-1957 and then in the reserves until he retired as a Captain in 1989. Furthermore, the President, who did not serve in the active duty, did indeed “wear a military unifrom” in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guard(s) from 1968 to 1972.
Surpirsing that such mis-information makes it into the Times, no?

Where is the reporting on the Senate Overview Hearings on Monday and the testimony by US Generals regarding the war in Iraq? You have a front page story about a football player who took the wrong pain killer dosage, but nothing on these landmark hearings?

It is inconceivable that the State Department could not have predicted the tragic outcome of our misadventure in Iraq with reasonable accuracy back in 2002. The NIE report, in this regard, is perfectly pointless. “Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations..” has been an identified need for decades. Trotting this formulation out as some sort of new prescription for dampening jihadism that the US should pursue is to say very little. It is not within our power, nor historically in our geo-political interests (Saudi Arabia, Egypt come to mind) to accomplish. The reality is that “jihadism” is the reaction of a prickly society to provacations (real and imagined). So long as the provocations remain in place, jihadism will thrive. Remove the provocation. Cut and run. To Afghanistan to successfully finish the “greater pluralism and more responsive political system” experiment there.

Several weeks ago, senate intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts attempted to minimize the impact of his committee’s newly released Phase II report by saying we’ve known all along that the prewar intelligence was a “tragic” failure.

Thanks to the NIE, Roberts now has another compelling reason to reiterate his longstanding characterization of the prewar intelligence failures as a tragedy.

Yet the president now insists that this counterproductive conflict, having been precipitated by an admittedly tragic failure, was nevertheless the right thing to do.

Indeed, the vice-president recently contended that, had we known everything then that we know now, we still would have invaded Iraq anyway.

Let’s get specific –

Had we known Iraq played no role in 9/11, we would have invaded anyway.

Had we known Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction, we would have invaded anyway.

Had we known (we did) the Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries, we would (we did) invade anyway.

If Cheney and Bush are to be taken at their word, one must conclude the prewar intelligence did not, indeed could not, have failed in any meaningful sense because its accuracy had in any case been irrelevant to the internal as opposed to the public case for war.

The various shortcomings collectively known as the failed intelligence are therefore a myth.

After having served 25 years on active duty in the Navy, I can tell you that the policies of the current administration were planned when Bush 1 was in office. I served with the US Marines with a surgical hospital in Fallujah and it was a terrible to see the death and destruction of the young soldiers.
It is a shame that the Bush administration doesn’t have the guts to admit when they are wrong and correct a course of action.
Remember the Army General that stated the we needed 300,000 “boots” on the ground to control Iraq. Well how right was he!!
I think we should impeach Bush and try some change in Congress also……

the republicans have consisently shown that the only interest they have in our security is to use it for partisan advantage and making empty promises. The idea of patient diplomacy in support of a coherent long term strategy is not something they have given serious consideration. Starting wars and making demands of allies or potential allies will not help our national security.

At what point is adminstartive intelligence considered viable and credible to contentions made by dissidents between not only democrats, but a growing number of moderate republicans, and perhaps more importantly, those who serve in both the intelligence community and the military alike? Regardless of the underlying causes that have gotten us into this disasterous war, there seems to be an unwillingness to conceed to the facts as illustrated. If we have a leader who chooses to disregard the very intel that is meant to serve as a tool to make informed decisions, then what does that ultimately say about his decision making process?

I am not going to play the typical partisan rhetoric, I simply am wondering what solutions have been provided by this administration that suggest an alternative towards a policy that by all indications, simply isn’t working. Whether democrats or not provide a better resolution to this conflict is ultimately a moot point for another two years, though a changing of the gaurd in Congress will help alleviate the almost laisez faire approach to challenging questionable policies. But I simply cannot understand in a logical and pragmatic sort of way that “staying the course” is a road to success when all substantive evidence supports the contrary. Please, someone elnlighten me becuase I am really trying to understand this.

Again, I don’t necessarily subscribe to the “cut and run” notion either – we made this mess, we should at least be willing to do what we can to make it work. But at what point does a leader interanlize data and dissident positions as a credible option and not simply a threat to an unchecked ego? Is the willingness to risk the lives of our good and true US soldiers worth “staying the course” when the course was the wrong road taken when at the crossroads?

Either way, God Bless us all. Americans an Iraqis, and everyone else dying in this senesless mess.

Republicans are insisting that the core message of the NIE report is that: “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight”

Fewer than what? Fewer than there was pre-Iraq war? I doubt it. Will there be fewer than 19 of them? That’s all it took to carry out the 9/11 attacks and by the Bush administration’s own argument, they would have carried out that attack regardless of the Iraq invasion, so any new jihadists created by this war, are an incremental increase. Any way you cut it, when we leave Iraq, there will be more people prepared to carry out acts of terror against Americans than there was before the war. Post Iraq, we will not merely return to the same old fringe lunatics that have been attacking us for the last 20 years, but in fact, as the report says, “…the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives”.

The only question remaining is how do we minimise this incremental increase and thereby lessen the threat to our security in the post Iraq era?

We can either “stay the course” until victory (whatever and whenever that is), and see the numbers of global jihadist recruits rise and rise along with support for their cause, as resentment grows and festers.

or,

We can withdraw before their numbers grow any further, causing a brief euphoric spike in support for the jihadists due to a perceived victory, but followed by a long term decline, as their “cause celebre” has been removed.